I have a serious question for you..

[spidermike007]

It would mean that the nation was not democratic, and was run by greedy autocrats and the military, who ignore the will of the people at their own peril. 

[Presnock]

16 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

I don't think the people would roll over but maybe people remember yellow shirts vs red shirts trouble

Yes, TIT reaction for sure but this time not even that...guess maybe folks are afraid of the military response to any action

[CanadaSam]

19 minutes ago, 2baht said:

What a waste, how you gonna find out what they saying about you now, Sammy???

 

This is "Bob Smith" LOL, it's not like I'm gonna miss anything important or worthwhile, is it?

[bob smith]

5 minutes ago, CanadaSam said:

 

This is "Bob Smith" LOL, it's not like I'm gonna miss anything important or worthwhile, is it?

....eyyy up lads, didn't you know that CanadaSam has ALL the answers!!

 

don't block him whatever you do!

 

bob.

Edited August 10 by bob smith

[brianthainess]

Well I think if it happened in the UK the King would step in to stop it happening............

[brianthainess]

16 hours ago, impulse said:

 

The difference being only a matter of degree.  You know the old story about how to boil a frog...

No. 

[thesetat2013]

16 hours ago, bob smith said:

Not pointless.

 

Thailand likes to portray itself as a developed nation.

 

are you saying that they are, in fact, the contrary?

 

bob.

Thai government like to portray the country as a developed nation. You left out an important word. Their politics is far from being developed. Most Thais I know do not really follow politics but vote knowing their choice does not really matter. They accept who wins or who takes over. Just look at the past with Prayut? Look at the past with Yingluck? Even as recent as their last elections with Pita. Your question is irrelevant because all we can do is watch at a distance. But the results to answering your question is obvious. 

 

As for America or the UK. Their would be infighting, perhaps even civil war if politics were run the way they do in Thailand. This was proven when Trump lost the election and states and people tried to separate themselves from the White House and form their own government. People stormed the White House. All because Trump won the majority of the people but lost the majority of electoral votes. If it happens this way with Trump and Harris. It may get nasty again there. 

[brianthainess]

12 hours ago, Burma Bill said:

Monarchy was restored but with no parliamentary influence.

 

True to a certain point, but any new Government must seek permission to form a government by the Monarch, and they can call them in for a word in their ear if need be. 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, 2baht said:

They've got your name, they've got your number, Lacy! Careful what you say!😏

I am.

[Sydebolle]

Repeat and repeat again the elections ........ until the figures tally? 

[BritManToo]

18 hours ago, bob smith said:

If a political party in the west (UK, US, AUS, NZ/WHATEVER) managed to get the majority of the public vote and then suddenly, out of thin air, that party got disbanded - what do you think would happen?

In the west the elections get fixed at the ballot box.

No need to disband the party later. 

[Lacessit]

30 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

In the west the elections get fixed at the ballot box.

No need to disband the party later. 

I guess that's why the republicans were so ropeable in 2019, their fixing didn't work as expected.

[harryviking]

Anywhere else in the world it would be riots in the streets if any party that won the election was disbanded! Look at Venezuela as an example. This only show that Thailand is ruled by a gang of corrupt people that can do as they please as there is no reaction among the people. What is wrong with the Thai people????

[Burma Bill]

3 hours ago, brianthainess said:

True to a certain point, but any new Government must seek permission to form a government by the Monarch, and they can call them in for a word in their ear if need be. 

Thank you and yes indeed, especially in more modern times, but back in Cromwell's days it was very different. 

[farangkinok]

[Chris Daley]

The deputy Prime Minster would take over and they would assemble a new party.  I don't think they would vote again because it would be the same manifesto just a new bunch of suits.

[Chris Daley]

delete

Edited August 10 by Chris Daley

[bob smith]

3 hours ago, harryviking said:

What is wrong with the Thai people????

That is the main question I ask myself every single day!

 

bob.

[lavender19]

On 8/9/2024 at 4:08 PM, bob smith said:

So you think that it's better (politically) in Thailand, where coups are as common as muck and free speech is non existent, than in the UK?

 

Am I right about that?

 

bob.

Much better in Thailand. The UK is a dictatorship now under twotierkier. The Muslims rule the country 

[sangtip2]

There would be unrest but not to the point of revolution.   Lawsuits would start ant take years in court.  By the time the court finished with it it wouldn't matter any more.

[CANSIAM]

3 hours ago, bob smith said:

That is the main question I ask myself every single day!

 

bob.

It could be the non confrontational culture here, it's better to just smile and eat some sticky rice........

[bob smith]

3 minutes ago, CANSIAM said:

It could be the non confrontational culture here, it's better to just smile and eat some sticky rice........

smile as your liberty is stolen from you, is it?

 

what bleedin planet are you on !!

 

bob.

[CANSIAM]

Referring to your bleedin answer to another's  post where you stated  "that is the main question I ask myself every single day" scroll up and have another bleedin look bob........ 

[bob smith]

2 minutes ago, CANSIAM said:

Referring to your bleedin answer to another's  post where you stated  "that is the main question I ask myself every single day" scroll up and have another bleedin look bob........ 

dodgin again.

 

bob.

[London Lowf]

57 minutes ago, sangtip2 said:

There would be unrest but not to the point of revolution.   Lawsuits would start ant take years in court.  By the time the court finished with it it wouldn't matter any more.

 

As far as the UK goes, this is the best answer so far.

 

We all, along with most of the rest of the world, laid down and played dead with Covid lockdowns - democracy shenanigans aren't even in the same league as a threat to basic human rights.

 

It doesn't matter who is in power, we are now effectively ruled by #1 lawyers and #2 big business.

 

Edited August 10 by London Lowf

[nakhonandy]

Obviously this is about Thailand. 

I learned a long time ago I have no vote and therefore can't change it, so, I don't try.

 

It's not England, where I won't be imprisoned for a long time for wishing to reform something. 

[john donson]

happens more than you think

 

in my home country, the winner of the elections got not banned, but all the other losers, green and red parties come together to exclude the winner...

[ChristianBlessing]

On 8/9/2024 at 4:55 PM, Jingthing said:

In the US its common for the party that got the most votes to lose the presidency.

Also when you add up the votes for congress, most total votes is irrelevant.

But taking it a step further and abolishing the party that got the majority of votes, in the US that would mean civil war.

I would submit that it is in fact not at all "common" for a US presidential candidate without a plurality of the popular vote to win the office. It has happened 5 times in 58 elections. Furthermore there is no governing body with the authority to ban or abolish a political party in the US. To be certain other challenges to a candidate's success at the ballot box exist as the US witnessed in both 2020 and 2021.